calculate_meat_cooking_time

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'time min and oven temp °C', but does not mention any limitations, assumptions (e.g., conventional oven, standard conditions), or what happens with atypical inputs. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with key information front-loaded: purpose and inputs/outputs in the first sentence, and a pointer to related tools in the second. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and hints at related bundles. However, it lacks behavioral details such as whether it handles bone-in cuts or altitude adjustments. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description remains adequate for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions and enums for all three parameters. The description simply restates 'Inputs: meat type, weight kg, target doneness' without adding new meaning or clarifying edge cases. It does not enhance what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the verb 'compute', the resource 'oven cooking time for meat', and the inputs (cut, weight, doneness). It also references related 'cuisine' calculators via 'list_bundles', helping distinguish from sibling tools like 'calculate_meat_cooking' and 'calculate_cooking_time'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'Use for cooking' which is vague and does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions 'See list_bundles for related calculators' but lacks clear differentiation from similar sibling tools or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.